Trigger warning:

This site may, in fact always will contain images and information likely to cause consternation, conniptions, distress, along with moderate to severe bedwetting among statists, wimps, wusses, politicians, lefties, green fascists, and creatures of the state who can't bear the thought of anything that disagrees with their jaded view of the world.

Jan 1, 2013

On
the assumption that this will be Julia’s last new year as PM, she has outlined
her vision for the incoming year.The report is from the ABC and Gillard is a Laborite, so an idea from
her is called a vision, as per standard practice.

In
order to have a grandiose big spending scheme to hang her hat on during her
declining years, she is pushing through the National Disability Insurance
Scheme despite her government’s inability to balance the budget in the good
times. Her other grand plan
is ‘reforming’ education by throwing an extra $5 billion per year at it.

THE law
that was used to silence Andrew Bolt has been supercharged by the Gillard
government's proposed changes to anti-discrimination laws.Bolt was found to
have breached section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which says it is
unlawful to offend or insult someone on the basis of racial or ethnic characteristics
in a public space.

But Attorney-General Nicola Roxon's
proposed changes massively expand the list of characteristics people can be
offended by, expanding the jurisdiction into shops, workplaces and sporting
clubs.The regime will provide a
new weapon in the war on free speech by even including "political
opinion" as a ground on which people can be discriminated against.

This extraordinary change makes even
innocuous political expressions subject to the law - a person need only be
offended or insulted in order to make out a claim. Shop owners displaying signs
in support of a political candidate may now be legally discriminating against
employees who want the other guy to win. …

Not only do the changes represent an
extraordinary attack on freedom of speech, they also undermine fundamental
legal principles derived from 800 years of common law. They would reverse the
onus of proof, forcing employers to prove that they are innocent of
discrimination. …

… The rationale behind this principle
is simple: it is difficult, even impossible, to produce evidence of a thing
that does not exist. In a free society, it is a principle of utmost importance
that we protect the innocent even if it makes it harder to punish the guilty.

A reversal of the onus of proof tends
to result in absurd and unjust outcomes. And this is precisely what the Gillard
government's proposed changes will achieve. Section 124 of the draft
legislation reverses the onus of proof in the case of a plaintiff providing
some evidence that discrimination could perhaps have occurred. After jumping
this small hurdle, it is then up to the defendant to prove otherwise.For some reason the Gillard government
doesn't see this as a reversal of the burden of proof, but a "shift".
It at least gets points for creativity.

Discrimination claims will also cost
the complainant nothing even if they lose. The laws have been designed to
create a no-cost regime (at least for those who allege discrimination).

This is not how civil cases are
usually run. Sure, free lawsuits may sound appealing but generally the losing
party must pay all legal costs, which helps discourage any frivolous claims
from making it to court. Instead, the already struggling court system will be
burdened with a flood of new litigation from people who no longer have to take
any financial risk.

Indeed, the new law creates a regime
that skews so heavily towards plaintiffs that it actually encourages false
allegations. Most employers, faced with potentially substantial costs in terms
of time and money, will settle even spurious claims out of court. Smart lawyers
already know how to squeeze "go away" money out of employers. …

… Unfavourable treatment could cover
almost anything, and simply ensures an increase in the number of discrimination
claims being made. …

… We've already seen the consequences
of the Racial Discrimination Act for freedom of speech. If you thought that was
a miscarriages of justice, just wait until you see the extraordinary wave of
free speech litigation Roxon's new laws will unleash.

Anti
discrimination laws have been absurd for some time.Four years ago the case of Ron Owen was dealt with here over
his being sued for an ‘offensive’ bumper sticker:

The former president of the
National Firearm Owners of Australia was taken to the tribunal by several local
lesbians, who claimed they had been offended despite only one having seen the
bumper sticker.

Two of the women were awarded
$5000, with a third awarded $2500 in damages.

Tribunal member Darryl Rangiah
handed down a 77-page decision, which also ordered Mr Owen to publish a written
apology for inciting hatred and causing offence to the homosexual community of
Gympie.

The possibility of being sued for
insensitivity is absolutely ridiculous in the first place, never mind the vast
expansion of grounds and the easier path to doing so.Making it risk free as far as costs are concerned, and with
a reverse onus of proof is begging for trouble.

It seems that we have government of
the people, by the lawyers, for the lawyers, shall not perish from Australia.